Pathway Summary
Consort map
Demographic information
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 1501 | control, N = 761 | treatment, N = 741 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
age | 148 | 50.75 ± 12.59 (25 - 74) | 51.04 ± 12.43 (25 - 74) | 50.46 ± 12.83 (28 - 73) | 0.779 |
Unknown | 2 | 2 | 0 | ||
gender | 150 | 0.918 | |||
f | 115 (77%) | 58 (76%) | 57 (77%) | ||
m | 35 (23%) | 18 (24%) | 17 (23%) | ||
occupation | 150 | 0.802 | |||
day_training | 2 (1.3%) | 2 (2.6%) | 0 (0%) | ||
full_time | 19 (13%) | 10 (13%) | 9 (12%) | ||
homemaker | 13 (8.7%) | 6 (7.9%) | 7 (9.5%) | ||
other | 2 (1.3%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (2.7%) | ||
part_time | 27 (18%) | 13 (17%) | 14 (19%) | ||
retired | 40 (27%) | 20 (26%) | 20 (27%) | ||
self_employ | 7 (4.7%) | 4 (5.3%) | 3 (4.1%) | ||
student | 2 (1.3%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (2.7%) | ||
t_and_e | 2 (1.3%) | 1 (1.3%) | 1 (1.4%) | ||
unemploy | 36 (24%) | 20 (26%) | 16 (22%) | ||
marital | 150 | 0.903 | |||
cohabitation | 1 (0.7%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (1.4%) | ||
divore | 16 (11%) | 10 (13%) | 6 (8.1%) | ||
in_relationship | 4 (2.7%) | 2 (2.6%) | 2 (2.7%) | ||
married | 42 (28%) | 22 (29%) | 20 (27%) | ||
none | 75 (50%) | 36 (47%) | 39 (53%) | ||
seperation | 3 (2.0%) | 2 (2.6%) | 1 (1.4%) | ||
widow | 9 (6.0%) | 4 (5.3%) | 5 (6.8%) | ||
edu | 150 | 0.134 | |||
bachelor | 36 (24%) | 13 (17%) | 23 (31%) | ||
diploma | 29 (19%) | 20 (26%) | 9 (12%) | ||
hd_ad | 4 (2.7%) | 3 (3.9%) | 1 (1.4%) | ||
postgraduate | 13 (8.7%) | 6 (7.9%) | 7 (9.5%) | ||
primary | 9 (6.0%) | 3 (3.9%) | 6 (8.1%) | ||
secondary_1_3 | 17 (11%) | 10 (13%) | 7 (9.5%) | ||
secondary_4_5 | 35 (23%) | 19 (25%) | 16 (22%) | ||
secondary_6_7 | 7 (4.7%) | 2 (2.6%) | 5 (6.8%) | ||
fam_income | 150 | 0.945 | |||
10001_12000 | 6 (4.0%) | 2 (2.6%) | 4 (5.4%) | ||
12001_14000 | 8 (5.3%) | 4 (5.3%) | 4 (5.4%) | ||
14001_16000 | 8 (5.3%) | 3 (3.9%) | 5 (6.8%) | ||
16001_18000 | 4 (2.7%) | 2 (2.6%) | 2 (2.7%) | ||
18001_20000 | 7 (4.7%) | 5 (6.6%) | 2 (2.7%) | ||
20001_above | 28 (19%) | 16 (21%) | 12 (16%) | ||
2001_4000 | 21 (14%) | 12 (16%) | 9 (12%) | ||
4001_6000 | 15 (10%) | 6 (7.9%) | 9 (12%) | ||
6001_8000 | 13 (8.7%) | 7 (9.2%) | 6 (8.1%) | ||
8001_10000 | 11 (7.3%) | 5 (6.6%) | 6 (8.1%) | ||
below_2000 | 29 (19%) | 14 (18%) | 15 (20%) | ||
medication | 150 | 132 (88%) | 67 (88%) | 65 (88%) | 0.952 |
onset_duration | 147 | 15.31 ± 10.57 (0 - 56) | 15.79 ± 11.44 (0 - 56) | 14.81 ± 9.62 (0 - 35) | 0.576 |
Unknown | 3 | 0 | 3 | ||
onset_age | 145 | 35.64 ± 13.87 (10 - 65) | 35.10 ± 12.56 (10 - 61) | 36.21 ± 15.18 (14 - 65) | 0.632 |
Unknown | 5 | 2 | 3 | ||
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test | |||||
Measurement
Table
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 1501 | control, N = 761 | treatment, N = 741 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | 150 | 3.15 ± 1.16 (1 - 5) | 3.21 ± 1.21 (1 - 5) | 3.09 ± 1.10 (1 - 5) | 0.541 |
recovery_stage_b | 150 | 17.88 ± 2.77 (8 - 24) | 17.84 ± 2.88 (8 - 24) | 17.92 ± 2.67 (13 - 24) | 0.866 |
ras_confidence | 150 | 29.85 ± 5.06 (15 - 45) | 29.68 ± 4.79 (15 - 40) | 30.01 ± 5.35 (18 - 45) | 0.692 |
ras_willingness | 150 | 11.78 ± 2.03 (5 - 15) | 11.67 ± 2.00 (5 - 15) | 11.89 ± 2.06 (7 - 15) | 0.506 |
ras_goal | 150 | 17.35 ± 3.04 (11 - 25) | 17.16 ± 2.82 (11 - 24) | 17.54 ± 3.26 (11 - 25) | 0.443 |
ras_reliance | 150 | 13.15 ± 2.89 (5 - 20) | 13.00 ± 2.74 (5 - 18) | 13.31 ± 3.05 (7 - 20) | 0.512 |
ras_domination | 150 | 9.83 ± 2.39 (3 - 15) | 10.09 ± 2.30 (3 - 15) | 9.57 ± 2.47 (3 - 15) | 0.180 |
symptom | 150 | 29.99 ± 9.12 (14 - 56) | 29.83 ± 9.38 (14 - 55) | 30.15 ± 8.91 (15 - 56) | 0.831 |
slof_work | 150 | 22.43 ± 4.81 (10 - 30) | 22.82 ± 4.34 (13 - 30) | 22.03 ± 5.24 (10 - 30) | 0.316 |
slof_relationship | 150 | 25.08 ± 5.95 (9 - 35) | 24.71 ± 5.97 (9 - 35) | 25.46 ± 5.94 (11 - 35) | 0.443 |
satisfaction | 150 | 20.34 ± 7.14 (5 - 35) | 19.57 ± 6.78 (5 - 33) | 21.14 ± 7.45 (5 - 35) | 0.179 |
mhc_emotional | 150 | 10.77 ± 3.80 (3 - 18) | 10.53 ± 3.67 (3 - 17) | 11.01 ± 3.93 (3 - 18) | 0.434 |
mhc_social | 150 | 14.89 ± 5.59 (5 - 30) | 14.63 ± 5.53 (5 - 30) | 15.15 ± 5.68 (5 - 29) | 0.573 |
mhc_psychological | 150 | 21.77 ± 6.39 (6 - 36) | 21.57 ± 6.06 (7 - 36) | 21.99 ± 6.74 (6 - 36) | 0.688 |
resilisnce | 150 | 16.49 ± 4.65 (6 - 30) | 16.13 ± 4.13 (6 - 24) | 16.86 ± 5.13 (6 - 30) | 0.335 |
social_provision | 150 | 13.47 ± 2.89 (5 - 20) | 13.09 ± 2.59 (5 - 20) | 13.85 ± 3.13 (5 - 20) | 0.107 |
els_value_living | 150 | 16.91 ± 3.10 (5 - 25) | 16.57 ± 2.87 (6 - 22) | 17.27 ± 3.30 (5 - 25) | 0.165 |
els_life_fulfill | 150 | 12.69 ± 3.38 (4 - 20) | 12.26 ± 3.22 (5 - 19) | 13.14 ± 3.51 (4 - 20) | 0.115 |
els | 150 | 29.61 ± 5.90 (9 - 45) | 28.83 ± 5.42 (11 - 38) | 30.41 ± 6.29 (9 - 45) | 0.102 |
social_connect | 150 | 26.67 ± 9.41 (8 - 48) | 26.91 ± 9.07 (8 - 48) | 26.42 ± 9.80 (8 - 48) | 0.752 |
shs_agency | 150 | 14.16 ± 5.11 (3 - 24) | 13.75 ± 4.70 (3 - 21) | 14.58 ± 5.51 (3 - 24) | 0.321 |
shs_pathway | 150 | 15.98 ± 4.01 (4 - 24) | 15.57 ± 3.86 (5 - 24) | 16.41 ± 4.14 (4 - 24) | 0.201 |
shs | 150 | 30.14 ± 8.71 (7 - 48) | 29.32 ± 8.17 (8 - 45) | 30.99 ± 9.22 (7 - 48) | 0.242 |
esteem | 150 | 12.56 ± 1.62 (9 - 20) | 12.57 ± 1.61 (9 - 18) | 12.55 ± 1.64 (10 - 20) | 0.965 |
mlq_search | 150 | 14.78 ± 3.54 (3 - 21) | 14.53 ± 3.44 (6 - 21) | 15.04 ± 3.64 (3 - 21) | 0.375 |
mlq_presence | 150 | 13.29 ± 4.32 (3 - 21) | 13.12 ± 3.97 (4 - 21) | 13.47 ± 4.66 (3 - 21) | 0.617 |
mlq | 150 | 28.07 ± 6.92 (6 - 42) | 27.64 ± 6.34 (10 - 40) | 28.51 ± 7.48 (6 - 42) | 0.444 |
empower | 150 | 19.17 ± 4.21 (6 - 30) | 18.86 ± 4.09 (11 - 30) | 19.50 ± 4.32 (6 - 30) | 0.350 |
ismi_resistance | 150 | 14.47 ± 2.49 (5 - 20) | 14.47 ± 2.14 (10 - 20) | 14.47 ± 2.82 (5 - 20) | 0.999 |
ismi_discrimation | 150 | 11.66 ± 3.09 (5 - 20) | 11.93 ± 2.95 (5 - 20) | 11.38 ± 3.22 (5 - 20) | 0.272 |
sss_affective | 150 | 10.01 ± 3.54 (3 - 18) | 9.99 ± 3.47 (3 - 18) | 10.03 ± 3.63 (3 - 18) | 0.945 |
sss_behavior | 150 | 9.72 ± 3.72 (3 - 18) | 9.86 ± 3.77 (3 - 18) | 9.58 ± 3.69 (3 - 18) | 0.653 |
sss_cognitive | 150 | 8.25 ± 3.72 (3 - 18) | 8.21 ± 3.69 (3 - 18) | 8.28 ± 3.78 (3 - 18) | 0.905 |
sss | 150 | 27.97 ± 10.15 (9 - 54) | 28.05 ± 10.06 (9 - 54) | 27.89 ± 10.31 (9 - 54) | 0.923 |
1Mean ± SD (Range) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test | |||||
Plot
## Warning: Removed 2 rows containing non-finite values (`stat_density()`).## Warning: Removed 1 rows containing missing values (`geom_vline()`).
Data analysis
Table
Group | Characteristic | Beta | SE1 | 95% CI1 | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | (Intercept) | 3.21 | 0.133 | 2.95, 3.47 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.116 | 0.189 | -0.487, 0.255 | 0.541 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.075 | 0.208 | -0.332, 0.482 | 0.718 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.438 | 0.296 | -0.142, 1.02 | 0.142 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.021 | ||||
recovery_stage_b | (Intercept) | 17.8 | 0.327 | 17.2, 18.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.077 | 0.466 | -0.836, 0.990 | 0.869 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.419 | 0.462 | -1.32, 0.487 | 0.367 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.07 | 0.659 | -0.225, 2.36 | 0.109 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
ras_confidence | (Intercept) | 29.7 | 0.583 | 28.5, 30.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.329 | 0.830 | -1.30, 1.96 | 0.692 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.968 | 0.645 | -0.296, 2.23 | 0.137 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.963 | 0.918 | -0.837, 2.76 | 0.298 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.022 | ||||
ras_willingness | (Intercept) | 11.7 | 0.232 | 11.2, 12.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.221 | 0.331 | -0.427, 0.869 | 0.505 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.353 | 0.256 | -0.854, 0.149 | 0.172 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.653 | 0.365 | -0.062, 1.37 | 0.078 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.016 | ||||
ras_goal | (Intercept) | 17.2 | 0.356 | 16.5, 17.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.383 | 0.507 | -0.612, 1.38 | 0.452 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.058 | 0.455 | -0.834, 0.949 | 0.899 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.787 | 0.648 | -0.483, 2.06 | 0.228 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.018 | ||||
ras_reliance | (Intercept) | 13.0 | 0.333 | 12.3, 13.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.311 | 0.474 | -0.617, 1.24 | 0.513 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.373 | 0.377 | -0.367, 1.11 | 0.326 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.613 | 0.538 | -0.441, 1.67 | 0.258 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.021 | ||||
ras_domination | (Intercept) | 10.1 | 0.268 | 9.57, 10.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.525 | 0.382 | -1.27, 0.224 | 0.171 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.293 | 0.362 | -1.00, 0.417 | 0.421 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.39 | 0.516 | 0.380, 2.40 | 0.009 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.025 | ||||
symptom | (Intercept) | 29.8 | 1.052 | 27.8, 31.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.320 | 1.497 | -2.61, 3.25 | 0.831 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.615 | 0.926 | -2.43, 1.20 | 0.509 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.16 | 1.319 | -3.75, 1.43 | 0.382 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.004 | ||||
slof_work | (Intercept) | 22.8 | 0.551 | 21.7, 23.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.789 | 0.784 | -2.33, 0.749 | 0.316 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.507 | 0.600 | -1.68, 0.668 | 0.401 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.817 | 0.854 | -0.858, 2.49 | 0.342 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
slof_relationship | (Intercept) | 24.7 | 0.680 | 23.4, 26.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.749 | 0.968 | -1.15, 2.65 | 0.440 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.496 | 0.717 | -1.90, 0.910 | 0.492 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.865 | 1.022 | -1.14, 2.87 | 0.400 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
satisfaction | (Intercept) | 19.6 | 0.823 | 18.0, 21.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.57 | 1.171 | -0.727, 3.87 | 0.182 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.771 | 0.869 | -0.932, 2.47 | 0.378 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.684 | 1.238 | -1.74, 3.11 | 0.582 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.021 | ||||
mhc_emotional | (Intercept) | 10.5 | 0.432 | 9.68, 11.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.487 | 0.615 | -0.719, 1.69 | 0.430 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.288 | 0.428 | -0.552, 1.13 | 0.504 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.108 | 0.610 | -1.09, 1.30 | 0.860 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.007 | ||||
mhc_social | (Intercept) | 14.6 | 0.661 | 13.3, 15.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.517 | 0.942 | -1.33, 2.36 | 0.584 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.540 | 0.731 | -0.893, 1.97 | 0.463 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.647 | 1.041 | -1.39, 2.69 | 0.536 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
mhc_psychological | (Intercept) | 21.6 | 0.760 | 20.1, 23.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.421 | 1.082 | -1.70, 2.54 | 0.698 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.882 | 0.835 | -0.755, 2.52 | 0.294 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.159 | 1.190 | -2.17, 2.49 | 0.894 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.006 | ||||
resilisnce | (Intercept) | 16.1 | 0.525 | 15.1, 17.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.733 | 0.747 | -0.730, 2.20 | 0.328 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.372 | 0.619 | -0.842, 1.59 | 0.549 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.65 | 0.882 | -0.079, 3.38 | 0.065 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.038 | ||||
social_provision | (Intercept) | 13.1 | 0.330 | 12.4, 13.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.759 | 0.470 | -0.163, 1.68 | 0.108 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.606 | 0.397 | -1.38, 0.171 | 0.130 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.898 | 0.565 | -0.210, 2.00 | 0.116 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.037 | ||||
els_value_living | (Intercept) | 16.6 | 0.360 | 15.9, 17.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.704 | 0.513 | -0.301, 1.71 | 0.171 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.399 | 0.411 | -0.407, 1.20 | 0.335 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.159 | 0.586 | -0.989, 1.31 | 0.787 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.019 | ||||
els_life_fulfill | (Intercept) | 12.3 | 0.381 | 11.5, 13.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.872 | 0.542 | -0.191, 1.93 | 0.110 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.523 | 0.373 | -0.209, 1.26 | 0.165 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.011 | 0.532 | -1.03, 1.05 | 0.983 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.022 | ||||
els | (Intercept) | 28.8 | 0.678 | 27.5, 30.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.58 | 0.966 | -0.316, 3.47 | 0.105 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.922 | 0.647 | -0.346, 2.19 | 0.158 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.098 | 0.922 | -1.71, 1.90 | 0.916 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.024 | ||||
social_connect | (Intercept) | 26.9 | 1.094 | 24.8, 29.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.489 | 1.557 | -3.54, 2.56 | 0.754 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.605 | 1.037 | -1.43, 2.64 | 0.561 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -3.46 | 1.478 | -6.35, -0.560 | 0.022 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.016 | ||||
shs_agency | (Intercept) | 13.7 | 0.584 | 12.6, 14.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.831 | 0.832 | -0.799, 2.46 | 0.319 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.202 | 0.580 | -0.935, 1.34 | 0.728 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.585 | 0.827 | -1.04, 2.21 | 0.482 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
shs_pathway | (Intercept) | 15.6 | 0.452 | 14.7, 16.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.840 | 0.643 | -0.421, 2.10 | 0.194 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.249 | 0.463 | -0.659, 1.16 | 0.592 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.008 | 0.660 | -1.30, 1.29 | 0.991 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
shs | (Intercept) | 29.3 | 0.987 | 27.4, 31.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.67 | 1.405 | -1.08, 4.42 | 0.236 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.441 | 0.962 | -1.44, 2.33 | 0.648 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.564 | 1.370 | -2.12, 3.25 | 0.682 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
esteem | (Intercept) | 12.6 | 0.175 | 12.2, 12.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.012 | 0.248 | -0.499, 0.475 | 0.962 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.171 | 0.264 | -0.347, 0.689 | 0.520 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.014 | 0.377 | -0.725, 0.753 | 0.971 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.003 | ||||
mlq_search | (Intercept) | 14.5 | 0.401 | 13.7, 15.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.514 | 0.572 | -0.606, 1.63 | 0.370 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.438 | 0.510 | -0.562, 1.44 | 0.393 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.626 | 0.727 | -2.05, 0.799 | 0.392 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.004 | ||||
mlq_presence | (Intercept) | 13.1 | 0.492 | 12.2, 14.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.355 | 0.700 | -1.02, 1.73 | 0.613 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.592 | 0.560 | -0.505, 1.69 | 0.294 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.071 | 0.797 | -1.63, 1.49 | 0.929 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
mlq | (Intercept) | 27.6 | 0.797 | 26.1, 29.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.869 | 1.134 | -1.35, 3.09 | 0.445 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.02 | 0.926 | -0.796, 2.84 | 0.274 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.666 | 1.320 | -3.25, 1.92 | 0.615 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
empower | (Intercept) | 18.9 | 0.479 | 17.9, 19.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.645 | 0.683 | -0.693, 1.98 | 0.346 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.695 | 0.478 | -0.241, 1.63 | 0.150 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.702 | 0.680 | -2.04, 0.632 | 0.306 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.006 | ||||
ismi_resistance | (Intercept) | 14.5 | 0.282 | 13.9, 15.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.001 | 0.401 | -0.787, 0.785 | 0.999 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.142 | 0.379 | -0.884, 0.600 | 0.708 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.855 | 0.539 | -0.202, 1.91 | 0.116 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
ismi_discrimation | (Intercept) | 11.9 | 0.357 | 11.2, 12.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.556 | 0.509 | -1.55, 0.441 | 0.276 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.151 | 0.396 | -0.928, 0.626 | 0.705 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.227 | 0.565 | -1.33, 0.880 | 0.689 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
sss_affective | (Intercept) | 9.99 | 0.403 | 9.20, 10.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.040 | 0.574 | -1.08, 1.17 | 0.944 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.108 | 0.434 | -0.958, 0.742 | 0.804 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.08 | 0.618 | -2.29, 0.129 | 0.084 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.014 | ||||
sss_behavior | (Intercept) | 9.86 | 0.424 | 9.02, 10.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.274 | 0.603 | -1.46, 0.909 | 0.650 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.240 | 0.452 | -1.13, 0.645 | 0.596 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.490 | 0.643 | -1.75, 0.771 | 0.448 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
sss_cognitive | (Intercept) | 8.21 | 0.421 | 7.39, 9.04 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.073 | 0.599 | -1.10, 1.25 | 0.903 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.302 | 0.463 | -0.606, 1.21 | 0.517 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.23 | 0.660 | -2.52, 0.065 | 0.066 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
sss | (Intercept) | 28.1 | 1.160 | 25.8, 30.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.161 | 1.651 | -3.40, 3.08 | 0.923 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.127 | 1.130 | -2.34, 2.09 | 0.911 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -2.58 | 1.610 | -5.74, 0.572 | 0.113 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval | |||||
Text
recovery_stage_a
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.34) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.21 (95% CI [2.95, 3.47], t(211) = 24.16, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.25], t(211) = -0.61, p = 0.540; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.22])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.48], t(211) = 0.36, p = 0.717; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.41])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-0.14, 1.02], t(211) = 1.48, p = 0.139; Std. beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.87])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
recovery_stage_b
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.48) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.84 (95% CI [17.20, 18.48], t(211) = 54.55, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.84, 0.99], t(211) = 0.16, p = 0.869; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.35])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-1.32, 0.49], t(211) = -0.91, p = 0.365; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.17])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.07, 95% CI [-0.23, 2.36], t(211) = 1.62, p = 0.106; Std. beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.83])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_confidence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.68 (95% CI [28.54, 30.83], t(211) = 50.92, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-1.30, 1.96], t(211) = 0.40, p = 0.692; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.38])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.97, 95% CI [-0.30, 2.23], t(211) = 1.50, p = 0.133; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.44])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.96, 95% CI [-0.84, 2.76], t(211) = 1.05, p = 0.294; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.54])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_willingness
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.67 (95% CI [11.22, 12.13], t(211) = 50.24, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.87], t(211) = 0.67, p = 0.504; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.43])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-0.85, 0.15], t(211) = -1.38, p = 0.168; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.07])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.65, 95% CI [-0.06, 1.37], t(211) = 1.79, p = 0.074; Std. beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.68])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_goal
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.60) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.16 (95% CI [16.46, 17.86], t(211) = 48.14, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.61, 1.38], t(211) = 0.75, p = 0.451; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.44])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.83, 0.95], t(211) = 0.13, p = 0.899; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.30])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.79, 95% CI [-0.48, 2.06], t(211) = 1.21, p = 0.224; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.66])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_reliance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.00 (95% CI [12.35, 13.65], t(211) = 39.08, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.62, 1.24], t(211) = 0.66, p = 0.512; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.42])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-0.37, 1.11], t(211) = 0.99, p = 0.323; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.38])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-0.44, 1.67], t(211) = 1.14, p = 0.254; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.57])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_domination
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.54) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.09 (95% CI [9.57, 10.62], t(211) = 37.63, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.52, 95% CI [-1.27, 0.22], t(211) = -1.37, p = 0.169; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.10])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-1.00, 0.42], t(211) = -0.81, p = 0.419; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.18])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.39, 95% CI [0.38, 2.40], t(211) = 2.70, p = 0.007; Std. beta = 0.60, 95% CI [0.16, 1.03])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
symptom
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.82) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.43e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.83 (95% CI [27.77, 31.89], t(211) = 28.37, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-2.61, 3.25], t(211) = 0.21, p = 0.831; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.35])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.61, 95% CI [-2.43, 1.20], t(211) = -0.66, p = 0.507; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.13])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.16, 95% CI [-3.75, 1.43], t(211) = -0.88, p = 0.380; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.15])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_work
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.76e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.82 (95% CI [21.74, 23.90], t(211) = 41.41, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.79, 95% CI [-2.33, 0.75], t(211) = -1.01, p = 0.315; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.16])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.51, 95% CI [-1.68, 0.67], t(211) = -0.85, p = 0.398; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.14])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.82, 95% CI [-0.86, 2.49], t(211) = 0.96, p = 0.339; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.52])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_relationship
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.47e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 24.71 (95% CI [23.38, 26.04], t(211) = 36.34, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.75, 95% CI [-1.15, 2.65], t(211) = 0.77, p = 0.439; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.45])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.50, 95% CI [-1.90, 0.91], t(211) = -0.69, p = 0.490; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.15])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.86, 95% CI [-1.14, 2.87], t(211) = 0.85, p = 0.397; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.48])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
satisfaction
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.57 (95% CI [17.95, 21.18], t(211) = 23.78, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.57, 95% CI [-0.73, 3.87], t(211) = 1.34, p = 0.180; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.54])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.77, 95% CI [-0.93, 2.47], t(211) = 0.89, p = 0.375; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.34])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.68, 95% CI [-1.74, 3.11], t(211) = 0.55, p = 0.581; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.43])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_emotional
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.55e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.53 (95% CI [9.68, 11.37], t(211) = 24.36, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-0.72, 1.69], t(211) = 0.79, p = 0.428; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.45])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.55, 1.13], t(211) = 0.67, p = 0.502; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.30])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-1.09, 1.30], t(211) = 0.18, p = 0.859; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.35])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_social
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.22e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.63 (95% CI [13.34, 15.93], t(211) = 22.12, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.52, 95% CI [-1.33, 2.36], t(211) = 0.55, p = 0.583; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.41])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-0.89, 1.97], t(211) = 0.74, p = 0.460; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.34])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.65, 95% CI [-1.39, 2.69], t(211) = 0.62, p = 0.534; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.47])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_psychological
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.76e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.57 (95% CI [20.08, 23.06], t(211) = 28.37, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.42, 95% CI [-1.70, 2.54], t(211) = 0.39, p = 0.697; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.39])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.88, 95% CI [-0.76, 2.52], t(211) = 1.06, p = 0.291; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.38])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-2.17, 2.49], t(211) = 0.13, p = 0.894; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.38])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
resilisnce
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.13 (95% CI [15.10, 17.16], t(211) = 30.75, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.73, 95% CI [-0.73, 2.20], t(211) = 0.98, p = 0.326; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.48])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-0.84, 1.59], t(211) = 0.60, p = 0.548; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.34])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.65, 95% CI [-0.08, 3.38], t(211) = 1.87, p = 0.061; Std. beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.73])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_provision
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.66) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.09 (95% CI [12.44, 13.74], t(211) = 39.63, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [-0.16, 1.68], t(211) = 1.61, p = 0.107; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.57])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.61, 95% CI [-1.38, 0.17], t(211) = -1.53, p = 0.126; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.06])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.90, 95% CI [-0.21, 2.00], t(211) = 1.59, p = 0.112; Std. beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.68])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_value_living
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.57 (95% CI [15.86, 17.27], t(211) = 45.98, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.70, 95% CI [-0.30, 1.71], t(211) = 1.37, p = 0.170; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.54])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-0.41, 1.20], t(211) = 0.97, p = 0.332; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.38])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.99, 1.31], t(211) = 0.27, p = 0.786; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.41])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_life_fulfill
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.26 (95% CI [11.52, 13.01], t(211) = 32.21, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.87, 95% CI [-0.19, 1.93], t(211) = 1.61, p = 0.108; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.58])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.52, 95% CI [-0.21, 1.26], t(211) = 1.40, p = 0.161; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.38])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-1.03, 1.05], t(211) = 0.02, p = 0.983; Std. beta = 3.34e-03, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.32])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.83 (95% CI [27.50, 30.16], t(211) = 42.50, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.58, 95% CI [-0.32, 3.47], t(211) = 1.63, p = 0.103; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.58])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.92, 95% CI [-0.35, 2.19], t(211) = 1.43, p = 0.154; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.37])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-1.71, 1.90], t(211) = 0.11, p = 0.916; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.32])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_connect
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 26.91 (95% CI [24.76, 29.05], t(211) = 24.60, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.49, 95% CI [-3.54, 2.56], t(211) = -0.31, p = 0.753; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.27])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-1.43, 2.64], t(211) = 0.58, p = 0.559; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.27])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -3.46, 95% CI [-6.35, -0.56], t(211) = -2.34, p = 0.019; Std. beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-0.66, -0.06])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_agency
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.75 (95% CI [12.61, 14.89], t(211) = 23.54, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.83, 95% CI [-0.80, 2.46], t(211) = 1.00, p = 0.318; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.49])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.94, 1.34], t(211) = 0.35, p = 0.727; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.26])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.58, 95% CI [-1.04, 2.21], t(211) = 0.71, p = 0.480; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.44])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_pathway
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.57 (95% CI [14.68, 16.45], t(211) = 34.45, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.84, 95% CI [-0.42, 2.10], t(211) = 1.31, p = 0.192; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.53])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.66, 1.16], t(211) = 0.54, p = 0.590; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.29])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -7.80e-03, 95% CI [-1.30, 1.29], t(211) = -0.01, p = 0.991; Std. beta = -1.97e-03, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.33])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.32 (95% CI [27.38, 31.25], t(211) = 29.71, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.67, 95% CI [-1.08, 4.42], t(211) = 1.19, p = 0.234; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.52])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-1.44, 2.33], t(211) = 0.46, p = 0.646; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.27])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.56, 95% CI [-2.12, 3.25], t(211) = 0.41, p = 0.681; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.38])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
esteem
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.38) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.93e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.57 (95% CI [12.22, 12.91], t(211) = 72.01, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.48], t(211) = -0.05, p = 0.962; Std. beta = -7.81e-03, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.32])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.69], t(211) = 0.65, p = 0.518; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.46])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.72, 0.75], t(211) = 0.04, p = 0.970; Std. beta = 9.29e-03, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.50])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_search
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.59) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.10e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.53 (95% CI [13.74, 15.31], t(211) = 36.18, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.51, 95% CI [-0.61, 1.63], t(211) = 0.90, p = 0.368; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.47])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-0.56, 1.44], t(211) = 0.86, p = 0.391; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.42])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.63, 95% CI [-2.05, 0.80], t(211) = -0.86, p = 0.389; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.23])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_presence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.11e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.12 (95% CI [12.15, 14.08], t(211) = 26.69, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-1.02, 1.73], t(211) = 0.51, p = 0.612; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.41])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.59, 95% CI [-0.50, 1.69], t(211) = 1.06, p = 0.290; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.40])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-1.63, 1.49], t(211) = -0.09, p = 0.929; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.35])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.88e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.64 (95% CI [26.08, 29.21], t(211) = 34.70, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.87, 95% CI [-1.35, 3.09], t(211) = 0.77, p = 0.444; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.45])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.02, 95% CI [-0.80, 2.84], t(211) = 1.10, p = 0.271; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.41])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.67, 95% CI [-3.25, 1.92], t(211) = -0.50, p = 0.614; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.28])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
empower
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.61e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.86 (95% CI [17.92, 19.80], t(211) = 39.33, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.64, 95% CI [-0.69, 1.98], t(211) = 0.94, p = 0.345; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.48])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.70, 95% CI [-0.24, 1.63], t(211) = 1.46, p = 0.145; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.39])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.70, 95% CI [-2.04, 0.63], t(211) = -1.03, p = 0.302; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.15])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_resistance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.54) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.47 (95% CI [13.92, 15.03], t(211) = 51.38, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -7.11e-04, 95% CI [-0.79, 0.79], t(211) = -1.77e-03, p = 0.999; Std. beta = -2.86e-04, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.32])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.88, 0.60], t(211) = -0.38, p = 0.708; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.24])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.85, 95% CI [-0.20, 1.91], t(211) = 1.58, p = 0.113; Std. beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.77])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_discrimation
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.93 (95% CI [11.23, 12.63], t(211) = 33.41, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.56, 95% CI [-1.55, 0.44], t(211) = -1.09, p = 0.274; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.14])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.93, 0.63], t(211) = -0.38, p = 0.704; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.20])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-1.33, 0.88], t(211) = -0.40, p = 0.688; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.28])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_affective
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.99 (95% CI [9.20, 10.78], t(211) = 24.77, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-1.08, 1.17], t(211) = 0.07, p = 0.944; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.33])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.96, 0.74], t(211) = -0.25, p = 0.804; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.21])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.08, 95% CI [-2.29, 0.13], t(211) = -1.75, p = 0.080; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.04])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_behavior
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.86e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.86 (95% CI [9.02, 10.69], t(211) = 23.25, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-1.46, 0.91], t(211) = -0.45, p = 0.650; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.24])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-1.13, 0.64], t(211) = -0.53, p = 0.594; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.17])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.49, 95% CI [-1.75, 0.77], t(211) = -0.76, p = 0.446; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.21])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_cognitive
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.15e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.21 (95% CI [7.39, 9.04], t(211) = 19.51, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-1.10, 1.25], t(211) = 0.12, p = 0.903; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.34])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.61, 1.21], t(211) = 0.65, p = 0.515; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.33])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.23, 95% CI [-2.52, 0.06], t(211) = -1.86, p = 0.063; Std. beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-0.68, 0.02])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.76e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.05 (95% CI [25.78, 30.33], t(211) = 24.19, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-3.40, 3.08], t(211) = -0.10, p = 0.922; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.30])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-2.34, 2.09], t(211) = -0.11, p = 0.911; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.20])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.58, 95% CI [-5.74, 0.57], t(211) = -1.60, p = 0.109; Std. beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.06])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
Likelihood ratio tests
outcome | model | npar | AIC | BIC | logLik | deviance | Chisq | Df | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | null | 3 | 679.862 | 690.002 | -336.931 | 673.862 | |||
recovery_stage_a | random | 6 | 679.847 | 700.126 | -333.923 | 667.847 | 6.015 | 3 | 0.111 |
recovery_stage_b | null | 3 | 1,058.596 | 1,068.736 | -526.298 | 1,052.596 | |||
recovery_stage_b | random | 6 | 1,061.169 | 1,081.449 | -524.585 | 1,049.169 | 3.427 | 3 | 0.330 |
ras_confidence | null | 3 | 1,289.062 | 1,299.201 | -641.531 | 1,283.062 | |||
ras_confidence | random | 6 | 1,283.826 | 1,304.105 | -635.913 | 1,271.826 | 11.236 | 3 | 0.011 |
ras_willingness | null | 3 | 882.832 | 892.972 | -438.416 | 876.832 | |||
ras_willingness | random | 6 | 884.143 | 904.423 | -436.072 | 872.143 | 4.689 | 3 | 0.196 |
ras_goal | null | 3 | 1,086.172 | 1,096.311 | -540.086 | 1,080.172 | |||
ras_goal | random | 6 | 1,087.311 | 1,107.590 | -537.655 | 1,075.311 | 4.861 | 3 | 0.182 |
ras_reliance | null | 3 | 1,046.008 | 1,056.147 | -520.004 | 1,040.008 | |||
ras_reliance | random | 6 | 1,043.501 | 1,063.780 | -515.750 | 1,031.501 | 8.507 | 3 | 0.037 |
ras_domination | null | 3 | 973.486 | 983.625 | -483.743 | 967.486 | |||
ras_domination | random | 6 | 970.152 | 990.431 | -479.076 | 958.152 | 9.333 | 3 | 0.025 |
symptom | null | 3 | 1,509.489 | 1,519.628 | -751.744 | 1,503.489 | |||
symptom | random | 6 | 1,511.482 | 1,531.761 | -749.741 | 1,499.482 | 4.007 | 3 | 0.261 |
slof_work | null | 3 | 1,253.027 | 1,263.167 | -623.514 | 1,247.027 | |||
slof_work | random | 6 | 1,257.420 | 1,277.699 | -622.710 | 1,245.420 | 1.607 | 3 | 0.658 |
slof_relationship | null | 3 | 1,340.773 | 1,350.913 | -667.386 | 1,334.773 | |||
slof_relationship | random | 6 | 1,344.963 | 1,365.242 | -666.481 | 1,332.963 | 1.810 | 3 | 0.613 |
satisfaction | null | 3 | 1,427.680 | 1,437.820 | -710.840 | 1,421.680 | |||
satisfaction | random | 6 | 1,427.799 | 1,448.078 | -707.899 | 1,415.799 | 5.881 | 3 | 0.118 |
mhc_emotional | null | 3 | 1,136.498 | 1,146.638 | -565.249 | 1,130.498 | |||
mhc_emotional | random | 6 | 1,140.454 | 1,160.733 | -564.227 | 1,128.454 | 2.044 | 3 | 0.563 |
mhc_social | null | 3 | 1,336.270 | 1,346.410 | -665.135 | 1,330.270 | |||
mhc_social | random | 6 | 1,338.600 | 1,358.879 | -663.300 | 1,326.600 | 3.670 | 3 | 0.299 |
mhc_psychological | null | 3 | 1,395.142 | 1,405.281 | -694.571 | 1,389.142 | |||
mhc_psychological | random | 6 | 1,398.288 | 1,418.568 | -693.144 | 1,386.288 | 2.853 | 3 | 0.415 |
resilisnce | null | 3 | 1,252.758 | 1,262.897 | -623.379 | 1,246.758 | |||
resilisnce | random | 6 | 1,245.936 | 1,266.215 | -616.968 | 1,233.936 | 12.822 | 3 | 0.005 |
social_provision | null | 3 | 1,048.882 | 1,059.022 | -521.441 | 1,042.882 | |||
social_provision | random | 6 | 1,047.238 | 1,067.518 | -517.619 | 1,035.238 | 7.644 | 3 | 0.054 |
els_value_living | null | 3 | 1,077.848 | 1,087.988 | -535.924 | 1,071.848 | |||
els_value_living | random | 6 | 1,078.816 | 1,099.095 | -533.408 | 1,066.816 | 5.032 | 3 | 0.169 |
els_life_fulfill | null | 3 | 1,084.947 | 1,095.087 | -539.474 | 1,078.947 | |||
els_life_fulfill | random | 6 | 1,084.218 | 1,104.497 | -536.109 | 1,072.218 | 6.729 | 3 | 0.081 |
els | null | 3 | 1,332.669 | 1,342.809 | -663.335 | 1,326.669 | |||
els | random | 6 | 1,331.318 | 1,351.597 | -659.659 | 1,319.318 | 7.351 | 3 | 0.062 |
social_connect | null | 3 | 1,540.234 | 1,550.373 | -767.117 | 1,534.234 | |||
social_connect | random | 6 | 1,537.891 | 1,558.171 | -762.946 | 1,525.891 | 8.342 | 3 | 0.039 |
shs_agency | null | 3 | 1,268.953 | 1,279.093 | -631.477 | 1,262.953 | |||
shs_agency | random | 6 | 1,271.565 | 1,291.844 | -629.783 | 1,259.565 | 3.388 | 3 | 0.336 |
shs_pathway | null | 3 | 1,160.417 | 1,170.557 | -577.208 | 1,154.417 | |||
shs_pathway | random | 6 | 1,164.048 | 1,184.327 | -576.024 | 1,152.048 | 2.369 | 3 | 0.499 |
shs | null | 3 | 1,493.736 | 1,503.875 | -743.868 | 1,487.736 | |||
shs | random | 6 | 1,496.694 | 1,516.974 | -742.347 | 1,484.694 | 3.041 | 3 | 0.385 |
esteem | null | 3 | 790.347 | 800.487 | -392.174 | 784.347 | |||
esteem | random | 6 | 795.436 | 815.716 | -391.718 | 783.436 | 0.911 | 3 | 0.823 |
mlq_search | null | 3 | 1,133.813 | 1,143.953 | -563.906 | 1,127.813 | |||
mlq_search | random | 6 | 1,138.489 | 1,158.768 | -563.245 | 1,126.489 | 1.324 | 3 | 0.723 |
mlq_presence | null | 3 | 1,209.625 | 1,219.765 | -601.812 | 1,203.625 | |||
mlq_presence | random | 6 | 1,213.383 | 1,233.662 | -600.691 | 1,201.383 | 2.242 | 3 | 0.524 |
mlq | null | 3 | 1,421.329 | 1,431.468 | -707.664 | 1,415.329 | |||
mlq | random | 6 | 1,425.525 | 1,445.804 | -706.762 | 1,413.525 | 1.804 | 3 | 0.614 |
empower | null | 3 | 1,182.850 | 1,192.990 | -588.425 | 1,176.850 | |||
empower | random | 6 | 1,186.176 | 1,206.455 | -587.088 | 1,174.176 | 2.674 | 3 | 0.445 |
ismi_resistance | null | 3 | 988.915 | 999.055 | -491.458 | 982.915 | |||
ismi_resistance | random | 6 | 990.972 | 1,011.252 | -489.486 | 978.972 | 3.943 | 3 | 0.268 |
ismi_discrimation | null | 3 | 1,068.292 | 1,078.432 | -531.146 | 1,062.292 | |||
ismi_discrimation | random | 6 | 1,071.736 | 1,092.015 | -529.868 | 1,059.736 | 2.556 | 3 | 0.465 |
sss_affective | null | 3 | 1,121.986 | 1,132.126 | -557.993 | 1,115.986 | |||
sss_affective | random | 6 | 1,120.463 | 1,140.742 | -554.231 | 1,108.463 | 7.523 | 3 | 0.057 |
sss_behavior | null | 3 | 1,138.302 | 1,148.442 | -566.151 | 1,132.302 | |||
sss_behavior | random | 6 | 1,140.989 | 1,161.269 | -564.495 | 1,128.989 | 3.313 | 3 | 0.346 |
sss_cognitive | null | 3 | 1,140.449 | 1,150.589 | -567.224 | 1,134.449 | |||
sss_cognitive | random | 6 | 1,141.942 | 1,162.222 | -564.971 | 1,129.942 | 4.507 | 3 | 0.212 |
sss | null | 3 | 1,566.658 | 1,576.797 | -780.329 | 1,560.658 | |||
sss | random | 6 | 1,566.796 | 1,587.075 | -777.398 | 1,554.796 | 5.862 | 3 | 0.119 |
Post hoc analysis
Table
outcome | time | control | treatment | between | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | estimate | within es | n | estimate | within es | p | es | ||
recovery_stage_a | 1st | 76 | 3.21 ± 1.16 | 74 | 3.09 ± 1.16 | 0.541 | 0.122 | ||
recovery_stage_a | 2nd | 34 | 3.29 ± 1.13 | -0.079 | 33 | 3.61 ± 1.13 | -0.541 | 0.246 | -0.339 |
recovery_stage_b | 1st | 76 | 17.84 ± 2.85 | 74 | 17.92 ± 2.85 | 0.869 | -0.037 | ||
recovery_stage_b | 2nd | 34 | 17.42 ± 2.68 | 0.203 | 33 | 18.57 ± 2.68 | -0.314 | 0.082 | -0.555 |
ras_confidence | 1st | 76 | 29.68 ± 5.08 | 74 | 30.01 ± 5.08 | 0.692 | -0.119 | ||
ras_confidence | 2nd | 34 | 30.65 ± 4.35 | -0.349 | 33 | 31.94 ± 4.34 | -0.696 | 0.225 | -0.466 |
ras_willingness | 1st | 76 | 11.67 ± 2.03 | 74 | 11.89 ± 2.03 | 0.505 | -0.201 | ||
ras_willingness | 2nd | 34 | 11.32 ± 1.73 | 0.320 | 33 | 12.19 ± 1.73 | -0.272 | 0.040 | -0.793 |
ras_goal | 1st | 76 | 17.16 ± 3.11 | 74 | 17.54 ± 3.11 | 0.452 | -0.192 | ||
ras_goal | 2nd | 34 | 17.22 ± 2.80 | -0.029 | 33 | 18.39 ± 2.80 | -0.424 | 0.089 | -0.587 |
ras_reliance | 1st | 76 | 13.00 ± 2.90 | 74 | 13.31 ± 2.90 | 0.513 | -0.191 | ||
ras_reliance | 2nd | 34 | 13.37 ± 2.50 | -0.229 | 33 | 14.30 ± 2.50 | -0.606 | 0.132 | -0.567 |
ras_domination | 1st | 76 | 10.09 ± 2.34 | 74 | 9.57 ± 2.34 | 0.171 | 0.328 | ||
ras_domination | 2nd | 34 | 9.80 ± 2.16 | 0.183 | 33 | 10.67 ± 2.16 | -0.686 | 0.102 | -0.542 |
symptom | 1st | 76 | 29.83 ± 9.17 | 74 | 30.15 ± 9.17 | 0.831 | -0.082 | ||
symptom | 2nd | 34 | 29.21 ± 7.29 | 0.157 | 33 | 28.37 ± 7.28 | 0.453 | 0.638 | 0.214 |
slof_work | 1st | 76 | 22.82 ± 4.80 | 74 | 22.03 ± 4.80 | 0.316 | 0.306 | ||
slof_work | 2nd | 34 | 22.31 ± 4.08 | 0.197 | 33 | 22.34 ± 4.08 | -0.120 | 0.978 | -0.011 |
slof_relationship | 1st | 76 | 24.71 ± 5.93 | 74 | 25.46 ± 5.93 | 0.440 | -0.244 | ||
slof_relationship | 2nd | 34 | 24.21 ± 4.99 | 0.161 | 33 | 25.83 ± 4.98 | -0.120 | 0.187 | -0.525 |
satisfaction | 1st | 76 | 19.57 ± 7.17 | 74 | 21.14 ± 7.17 | 0.182 | -0.421 | ||
satisfaction | 2nd | 34 | 20.34 ± 6.04 | -0.207 | 33 | 22.59 ± 6.03 | -0.391 | 0.128 | -0.605 |
mhc_emotional | 1st | 76 | 10.53 ± 3.77 | 74 | 11.01 ± 3.77 | 0.430 | -0.267 | ||
mhc_emotional | 2nd | 34 | 10.81 ± 3.10 | -0.158 | 33 | 11.41 ± 3.10 | -0.217 | 0.433 | -0.326 |
mhc_social | 1st | 76 | 14.63 ± 5.77 | 74 | 15.15 ± 5.77 | 0.584 | -0.164 | ||
mhc_social | 2nd | 34 | 15.17 ± 4.93 | -0.172 | 33 | 16.34 ± 4.93 | -0.377 | 0.335 | -0.370 |
mhc_psychological | 1st | 76 | 21.57 ± 6.63 | 74 | 21.99 ± 6.63 | 0.698 | -0.117 | ||
mhc_psychological | 2nd | 34 | 22.45 ± 5.65 | -0.245 | 33 | 23.03 ± 5.65 | -0.290 | 0.675 | -0.161 |
resilisnce | 1st | 76 | 16.13 ± 4.57 | 74 | 16.86 ± 4.57 | 0.328 | -0.273 | ||
resilisnce | 2nd | 34 | 16.50 ± 4.01 | -0.139 | 33 | 18.89 ± 4.00 | -0.753 | 0.016 | -0.888 |
social_provision | 1st | 76 | 13.09 ± 2.88 | 74 | 13.85 ± 2.88 | 0.108 | -0.441 | ||
social_provision | 2nd | 34 | 12.49 ± 2.54 | 0.352 | 33 | 14.14 ± 2.54 | -0.169 | 0.008 | -0.962 |
els_value_living | 1st | 76 | 16.57 ± 3.14 | 74 | 17.27 ± 3.14 | 0.171 | -0.397 | ||
els_value_living | 2nd | 34 | 16.96 ± 2.72 | -0.225 | 33 | 17.83 ± 2.72 | -0.314 | 0.195 | -0.486 |
els_life_fulfill | 1st | 76 | 12.26 ± 3.32 | 74 | 13.14 ± 3.32 | 0.110 | -0.548 | ||
els_life_fulfill | 2nd | 34 | 12.79 ± 2.73 | -0.329 | 33 | 13.67 ± 2.72 | -0.336 | 0.186 | -0.555 |
els | 1st | 76 | 28.83 ± 5.91 | 74 | 30.41 ± 5.91 | 0.104 | -0.573 | ||
els | 2nd | 34 | 29.75 ± 4.81 | -0.335 | 33 | 31.43 ± 4.81 | -0.371 | 0.156 | -0.608 |
social_connect | 1st | 76 | 26.91 ± 9.53 | 74 | 26.42 ± 9.53 | 0.754 | 0.111 | ||
social_connect | 2nd | 34 | 27.51 ± 7.75 | -0.137 | 33 | 23.57 ± 7.74 | 0.647 | 0.038 | 0.895 |
shs_agency | 1st | 76 | 13.75 ± 5.09 | 74 | 14.58 ± 5.09 | 0.319 | -0.336 | ||
shs_agency | 2nd | 34 | 13.95 ± 4.20 | -0.082 | 33 | 15.37 ± 4.20 | -0.318 | 0.169 | -0.572 |
shs_pathway | 1st | 76 | 15.57 ± 3.94 | 74 | 16.41 ± 3.94 | 0.194 | -0.424 | ||
shs_pathway | 2nd | 34 | 15.82 ± 3.28 | -0.126 | 33 | 16.65 ± 3.28 | -0.122 | 0.301 | -0.420 |
shs | 1st | 76 | 29.32 ± 8.60 | 74 | 30.99 ± 8.60 | 0.236 | -0.408 | ||
shs | 2nd | 34 | 29.76 ± 7.05 | -0.108 | 33 | 31.99 ± 7.05 | -0.245 | 0.196 | -0.546 |
esteem | 1st | 76 | 12.57 ± 1.52 | 74 | 12.55 ± 1.52 | 0.962 | 0.010 | ||
esteem | 2nd | 34 | 12.74 ± 1.47 | -0.143 | 33 | 12.74 ± 1.47 | -0.154 | 0.995 | -0.002 |
mlq_search | 1st | 76 | 14.53 ± 3.50 | 74 | 15.04 ± 3.50 | 0.370 | -0.230 | ||
mlq_search | 2nd | 34 | 14.96 ± 3.15 | -0.196 | 33 | 14.85 ± 3.15 | 0.084 | 0.885 | 0.050 |
mlq_presence | 1st | 76 | 13.12 ± 4.29 | 74 | 13.47 ± 4.29 | 0.613 | -0.147 | ||
mlq_presence | 2nd | 34 | 13.71 ± 3.70 | -0.245 | 33 | 13.99 ± 3.70 | -0.215 | 0.755 | -0.117 |
mlq | 1st | 76 | 27.64 ± 6.95 | 74 | 28.51 ± 6.95 | 0.445 | -0.217 | ||
mlq | 2nd | 34 | 28.66 ± 6.05 | -0.255 | 33 | 28.87 ± 6.05 | -0.088 | 0.891 | -0.051 |
empower | 1st | 76 | 18.86 ± 4.18 | 74 | 19.50 ± 4.18 | 0.346 | -0.317 | ||
empower | 2nd | 34 | 19.55 ± 3.45 | -0.341 | 33 | 19.49 ± 3.45 | 0.003 | 0.946 | 0.028 |
ismi_resistance | 1st | 76 | 14.47 ± 2.46 | 74 | 14.47 ± 2.46 | 0.999 | 0.000 | ||
ismi_resistance | 2nd | 34 | 14.33 ± 2.26 | 0.085 | 33 | 15.19 ± 2.26 | -0.426 | 0.124 | -0.511 |
ismi_discrimation | 1st | 76 | 11.93 ± 3.11 | 74 | 11.38 ± 3.11 | 0.276 | 0.326 | ||
ismi_discrimation | 2nd | 34 | 11.78 ± 2.67 | 0.088 | 33 | 11.00 ± 2.67 | 0.221 | 0.231 | 0.459 |
sss_affective | 1st | 76 | 9.99 ± 3.51 | 74 | 10.03 ± 3.51 | 0.944 | -0.022 | ||
sss_affective | 2nd | 34 | 9.88 ± 2.98 | 0.058 | 33 | 8.84 ± 2.98 | 0.639 | 0.153 | 0.560 |
sss_behavior | 1st | 76 | 9.86 ± 3.69 | 74 | 9.58 ± 3.69 | 0.650 | 0.142 | ||
sss_behavior | 2nd | 34 | 9.61 ± 3.12 | 0.124 | 33 | 8.85 ± 3.12 | 0.377 | 0.317 | 0.395 |
sss_cognitive | 1st | 76 | 8.21 ± 3.67 | 74 | 8.28 ± 3.67 | 0.903 | -0.037 | ||
sss_cognitive | 2nd | 34 | 8.51 ± 3.13 | -0.151 | 33 | 7.36 ± 3.13 | 0.465 | 0.132 | 0.580 |
sss | 1st | 76 | 28.05 ± 10.11 | 74 | 27.89 ± 10.11 | 0.923 | 0.033 | ||
sss | 2nd | 34 | 27.93 ± 8.29 | 0.026 | 33 | 25.18 ± 8.28 | 0.563 | 0.177 | 0.570 |
Between group
recovery_stage_a
1st
t(200.23) = -0.61, p = 0.541, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-0.49 to 0.26)
2st
t(206.20) = 1.16, p = 0.246, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.22 to 0.87)
recovery_stage_b
1st
t(188.85) = 0.16, p = 0.869, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-0.84 to 1.00)
2st
t(203.57) = 1.75, p = 0.082, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-0.15 to 2.43)
ras_confidence
1st
t(170.08) = 0.40, p = 0.692, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.31 to 1.97)
2st
t(209.30) = 1.22, p = 0.225, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-0.80 to 3.39)
ras_willingness
1st
t(169.89) = 0.67, p = 0.505, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.43 to 0.87)
2st
t(209.42) = 2.07, p = 0.040, Cohen d = -0.79, 95% CI (0.04 to 1.71)
ras_goal
1st
t(179.53) = 0.75, p = 0.452, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.62 to 1.38)
2st
t(204.72) = 1.71, p = 0.089, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (-0.18 to 2.52)
ras_reliance
1st
t(171.52) = 0.66, p = 0.513, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.62 to 1.25)
2st
t(208.43) = 1.51, p = 0.132, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (-0.28 to 2.13)
ras_domination
1st
t(184.41) = -1.37, p = 0.171, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-1.28 to 0.23)
2st
t(203.70) = 1.64, p = 0.102, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (-0.17 to 1.91)
symptom
1st
t(160.94) = 0.21, p = 0.831, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-2.64 to 3.28)
2st
t(212.86) = -0.47, p = 0.638, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-4.35 to 2.67)
slof_work
1st
t(169.25) = -1.01, p = 0.316, Cohen d = 0.31, 95% CI (-2.34 to 0.76)
2st
t(209.82) = 0.03, p = 0.978, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.94 to 1.99)
slof_relationship
1st
t(167.73) = 0.77, p = 0.440, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-1.16 to 2.66)
2st
t(210.75) = 1.32, p = 0.187, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.79 to 4.02)
satisfaction
1st
t(167.77) = 1.34, p = 0.182, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.74 to 3.88)
2st
t(210.73) = 1.53, p = 0.128, Cohen d = -0.61, 95% CI (-0.65 to 5.16)
mhc_emotional
1st
t(165.02) = 0.79, p = 0.430, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.73 to 1.70)
2st
t(212.22) = 0.78, p = 0.433, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.90 to 2.09)
mhc_social
1st
t(170.06) = 0.55, p = 0.584, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-1.34 to 2.38)
2st
t(209.32) = 0.97, p = 0.335, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-1.21 to 3.54)
mhc_psychological
1st
t(169.76) = 0.39, p = 0.698, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.72 to 2.56)
2st
t(209.50) = 0.42, p = 0.675, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-2.14 to 3.30)
resilisnce
1st
t(173.94) = 0.98, p = 0.328, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.74 to 2.21)
2st
t(207.07) = 2.44, p = 0.016, Cohen d = -0.89, 95% CI (0.45 to 4.31)
social_provision
1st
t(175.01) = 1.61, p = 0.108, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-0.17 to 1.69)
2st
t(206.53) = 2.67, p = 0.008, Cohen d = -0.96, 95% CI (0.43 to 2.88)
els_value_living
1st
t(171.86) = 1.37, p = 0.171, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-0.31 to 1.72)
2st
t(208.23) = 1.30, p = 0.195, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.44 to 2.17)
els_life_fulfill
1st
t(164.59) = 1.61, p = 0.110, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-0.20 to 1.94)
2st
t(212.40) = 1.33, p = 0.186, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-0.43 to 2.20)
els
1st
t(163.56) = 1.63, p = 0.104, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (-0.33 to 3.48)
2st
t(212.76) = 1.42, p = 0.156, Cohen d = -0.61, 95% CI (-0.64 to 3.99)
social_connect
1st
t(163.34) = -0.31, p = 0.754, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-3.56 to 2.59)
2st
t(212.82) = -2.08, p = 0.038, Cohen d = 0.90, 95% CI (-7.68 to -0.21)
shs_agency
1st
t(165.11) = 1.00, p = 0.319, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.81 to 2.47)
2st
t(212.18) = 1.38, p = 0.169, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (-0.61 to 3.44)
shs_pathway
1st
t(166.43) = 1.31, p = 0.194, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.43 to 2.11)
2st
t(211.50) = 1.04, p = 0.301, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.75 to 2.41)
shs
1st
t(164.36) = 1.19, p = 0.236, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-1.10 to 4.44)
2st
t(212.49) = 1.30, p = 0.196, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-1.16 to 5.63)
esteem
1st
t(196.60) = -0.05, p = 0.962, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-0.50 to 0.48)
2st
t(204.95) = 0.01, p = 0.995, Cohen d = -0.00, 95% CI (-0.71 to 0.71)
mlq_search
1st
t(179.20) = 0.90, p = 0.370, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.61 to 1.64)
2st
t(204.82) = -0.15, p = 0.885, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-1.63 to 1.41)
mlq_presence
1st
t(171.70) = 0.51, p = 0.613, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.03 to 1.74)
2st
t(208.33) = 0.31, p = 0.755, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.50 to 2.07)
mlq
1st
t(172.97) = 0.77, p = 0.445, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-1.37 to 3.11)
2st
t(207.60) = 0.14, p = 0.891, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-2.71 to 3.12)
empower
1st
t(165.21) = 0.94, p = 0.346, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.70 to 1.99)
2st
t(212.13) = -0.07, p = 0.946, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-1.72 to 1.60)
ismi_resistance
1st
t(183.94) = -0.00, p = 0.999, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-0.79 to 0.79)
2st
t(203.75) = 1.55, p = 0.124, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-0.24 to 1.94)
ismi_discrimation
1st
t(170.29) = -1.09, p = 0.276, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-1.56 to 0.45)
2st
t(209.18) = -1.20, p = 0.231, Cohen d = 0.46, 95% CI (-2.07 to 0.50)
sss_affective
1st
t(168.67) = 0.07, p = 0.944, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-1.09 to 1.17)
2st
t(210.18) = -1.43, p = 0.153, Cohen d = 0.56, 95% CI (-2.48 to 0.39)
sss_behavior
1st
t(168.19) = -0.45, p = 0.650, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-1.47 to 0.92)
2st
t(210.47) = -1.00, p = 0.317, Cohen d = 0.39, 95% CI (-2.27 to 0.74)
sss_cognitive
1st
t(169.84) = 0.12, p = 0.903, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-1.11 to 1.26)
2st
t(209.45) = -1.51, p = 0.132, Cohen d = 0.58, 95% CI (-2.66 to 0.35)
sss
1st
t(164.34) = -0.10, p = 0.923, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-3.42 to 3.10)
2st
t(212.50) = -1.36, p = 0.177, Cohen d = 0.57, 95% CI (-6.73 to 1.25)
Within treatment group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(102.85) = 2.42, p = 0.035, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (0.09 to 0.93)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(91.86) = 1.37, p = 0.347, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.29 to 1.58)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(78.15) = 2.94, p = 0.009, Cohen d = -0.70, 95% CI (0.62 to 3.24)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(78.03) = 1.15, p = 0.507, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.22 to 0.82)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(84.62) = 1.82, p = 0.144, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.08 to 1.77)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(79.10) = 2.57, p = 0.024, Cohen d = -0.61, 95% CI (0.22 to 1.75)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(88.28) = 2.97, p = 0.008, Cohen d = -0.69, 95% CI (0.36 to 1.83)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(72.45) = -1.88, p = 0.127, Cohen d = 0.45, 95% CI (-3.65 to 0.10)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(77.61) = 0.51, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.91 to 1.53)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(76.64) = 0.51, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.09 to 1.82)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(76.66) = 1.64, p = 0.208, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.31 to 3.22)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(74.94) = 0.91, p = 0.733, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.47 to 1.26)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(78.14) = 1.59, p = 0.230, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-0.30 to 2.67)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(77.94) = 1.22, p = 0.449, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.65 to 2.73)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(80.71) = 3.21, p = 0.004, Cohen d = -0.75, 95% CI (0.77 to 3.28)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(81.44) = 0.72, p = 0.946, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.51 to 1.10)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(79.32) = 1.33, p = 0.373, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.28 to 1.39)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(74.67) = 1.41, p = 0.328, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.22 to 1.29)
els
1st vs 2st
t(74.04) = 1.55, p = 0.251, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.29 to 2.33)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(73.90) = -2.70, p = 0.017, Cohen d = 0.65, 95% CI (-4.95 to -0.75)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(74.99) = 1.33, p = 0.373, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.39 to 1.96)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(75.82) = 0.51, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.70 to 1.18)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(74.53) = 1.03, p = 0.615, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.94 to 2.96)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(98.97) = 0.69, p = 0.990, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.35 to 0.72)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(84.38) = -0.36, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-1.22 to 0.85)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(79.21) = 0.91, p = 0.728, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.61 to 1.65)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(80.06) = 0.38, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.52 to 2.23)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(75.05) = -0.01, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-0.97 to 0.96)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(87.91) = 1.85, p = 0.136, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (-0.05 to 1.48)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(78.29) = -0.94, p = 0.705, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-1.18 to 0.43)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(77.24) = -2.69, p = 0.017, Cohen d = 0.64, 95% CI (-2.07 to -0.31)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(76.93) = -1.59, p = 0.232, Cohen d = 0.38, 95% CI (-1.65 to 0.18)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(78.00) = -1.97, p = 0.106, Cohen d = 0.47, 95% CI (-1.87 to 0.01)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(74.52) = -2.36, p = 0.042, Cohen d = 0.56, 95% CI (-5.00 to -0.42)
Within control group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(102.73) = 0.36, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.34 to 0.49)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(91.78) = -0.90, p = 0.740, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-1.34 to 0.50)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(78.12) = 1.50, p = 0.277, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.32 to 2.26)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(77.99) = -1.37, p = 0.347, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-0.86 to 0.16)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(84.56) = 0.13, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.85 to 0.97)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(79.06) = 0.98, p = 0.655, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.38 to 1.13)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(88.21) = -0.81, p = 0.846, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-1.02 to 0.43)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(72.43) = -0.66, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-2.46 to 1.24)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(77.58) = -0.84, p = 0.804, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-1.70 to 0.69)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(76.60) = -0.69, p = 0.986, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-1.93 to 0.94)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(76.63) = 0.88, p = 0.759, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.97 to 2.51)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(74.91) = 0.67, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.57 to 1.14)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(78.10) = 0.74, p = 0.928, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.92 to 2.00)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(77.91) = 1.05, p = 0.592, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.79 to 2.55)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(80.67) = 0.60, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.86 to 1.61)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(81.39) = -1.52, p = 0.263, Cohen d = 0.35, 95% CI (-1.40 to 0.19)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(79.28) = 0.97, p = 0.673, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.42 to 1.22)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(74.65) = 1.40, p = 0.333, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.22 to 1.27)
els
1st vs 2st
t(74.01) = 1.42, p = 0.319, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.37 to 2.21)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(73.88) = 0.58, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.47 to 2.68)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(74.96) = 0.35, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.96 to 1.36)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(75.79) = 0.54, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.68 to 1.18)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(74.50) = 0.46, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.48 to 2.36)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(98.86) = 0.64, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.36 to 0.70)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(84.32) = 0.85, p = 0.790, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.58 to 1.46)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(79.17) = 1.05, p = 0.590, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.53 to 1.71)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(80.01) = 1.10, p = 0.552, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.83 to 2.87)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(75.03) = 1.45, p = 0.301, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.26 to 1.65)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(87.84) = -0.37, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-0.90 to 0.61)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(78.25) = -0.38, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-0.94 to 0.64)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(77.20) = -0.25, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-0.97 to 0.76)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(76.90) = -0.53, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-1.14 to 0.66)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(77.96) = 0.65, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.62 to 1.23)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(74.49) = -0.11, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-2.38 to 2.13)
Plot
